Czarnecki Paweł – Ass. Prof., Ph.D.
University of Economy and Innovation (Lublin, Poland)
CONTEMPORARY DIRECTIONS IN PHILOSOPHY OF MORALITY: BIOETHICS, SOZOLOGY AND MODERN ETHICAL SUB-DISCIPLINES
Most of bioethical disciplines mentioned above are situated on the border of ethics and other sciences (like ecology, medicine, genetics). This inter-disciplinary nature of bioethics causes that bioethics becomes the subject of interest not only among philosophers but also other scientists. The need for common reflection under discussed issue seem to be significant and desirable, because it requires specialist knowledge of philosophy, medicine, etc. Philosopher is for sure able to penetrate elementary knowledge of ecology, medicine or biochemistry but he is not able to become a specialist in these areas that can give him sufficient understanding of phenomenons that happen in present days. Therefore cooperation is the word-clue for describing new directions in bioethics, the science that comprises knowledge of many disciplines.
Keywords: bioethics, sozology, genetics, interdisciplinarnost', creation, sense.
Ïàâåë ×àðíåöêè. Ñîâðåìåííûå íàïðàâëåíèÿ â ôèëîñîôèè ìîðàëè: áèîýòèêà, ñîçîëîãèÿ è ñîâðåìåííûå íàïðàâëåíèÿ ýòèêè. Áîëüøèíñòâî èç áèîýòè÷åñêèõ äèñöèïëèí íàõîäÿòñÿ íà ãðàíèöå ýòèêè è äðóãèõ íàóê (ïîäîáíî ýêîëîãèè, ìåäèöèíå, ãåíåòèêå). Ýòà ìåæäèñöèïëèíàðíàÿ ïðèðîäà áèîýòèêè îïðåäåëÿåò òîò ôàêò, ÷òî áèîýòèêà ñòàíîâèòñÿ òåìîé èíòåðåñà è ñðåäè ôèëîñîôîâ, è ñðåäè äðóãèõ ó÷åíûõ. Ïîòðåáíîñòü â îáùåì îòîáðàæåíèè ñóùíîñòè îáñóæäàåìîãî, ñóùåñòâåííà è æåëàòåëüíà, ïîòîìó ÷òî ýòî òðåáóåò çíàíèé ñïåöèàëèñòîâ-ôèëîñîôîâ, ìåäèêîâ è äð. Ôèëîñîô, æåëàÿ ïðîíèêíóòü â ýòè ïðîáëåìû, íóæäàåòñÿ â ïîìîùè ýêîëîãîâ, ìåäèêîâ èëè áèîõèìèêîâ, ïîñêîëüêó ñàì íå ìîæåò áûòü ñïåöèàëèñòîì â ýòèõ îáëàñòÿõ. Ïîýòîìó êîîïåðàöèÿ – êëþ÷åâîå ñëîâî äëÿ îïèñàíèÿ íîâûõ íàïðàâëåíèé â áèîýòèêå, íàóêå, êîòîðàÿ îõâàòûâàåò çíàíèå ìíîãèõ äèñöèïëèí.
Êëþ÷åâûå ñëîâà: áèîýòèêà, ñîçîëîãèÿ, ãåíåòèêà, èíòåðäèñöèïëèíàðíîñòü, òâîð÷åñòâî, ñìûñë.
The word “bioethics’ indicates that we make reference to the ethics of life (“bios” = “life”). However, this definition does not seem to be satisfying enough, because this discipline does not regards the issue of human’s life ( in general) but problems around biological dim of human’s existence. Also by the fact, that bioethics puts main attention on human’s existence, it differs from the ecological ethics that regards problems appearing between the human’s world and natural environment. Criteria of autonomic ethical discipline seem to be also fulfilled by the “ animal ethics” that searches for solution of man-animal relation’s issues, especially animals raised by a man.
The ethical reflection tending to describe a proper human’s attitude towards life has been one of the most important issue for moral philosophy since the beginning of the world. All sages, as from Epikur – the creator of philosophical systems, have endeavored to find objective rules in nature that could allow not only understand a human being in the structure of reality, but also to discover moral consequences derived from this structure. However, as late as on the turn of 60’s and 70’s philosophers realized that the human’s attitude towards life (existence) was so complicated that it had been necessary to create new specialization.
The term “bioethics” had been not rolled out by a philosopher. For the very first time this term had been in 1970 by American biochemist – Van Rensselaer Potter in the article named Bioethics: The Science of Survival developed afterward in his book: Bioethics: Bridge to the Future[1]. The second mentioned book describes bioethics as the biological discipline whose purpose is to survey biomedical sciences in respect of new possibilities that can improve the quality of human’s life. According to Potter bioethics is suppose to refer to some moral criteria where the rule of mankind’s survival is the most important one. Therefore all actions intending to support this target are good. Potter describes bioethics as the science of survival. Her task is to link the science to knowledge of moral values, in order to ensure optimal conditions to mankind in future. Lack of criticism against results of biomedical studies is the significant point in Potter’s theory. He does not seem to appreciate moral difficulties related to the definition of welfare. Reflection under these difficulties dawned on Potter later on.
The first bioethical institute called The Joseph and Rose Kennedy Institute for Study of Human Reproduction and Bioethics was founded in 1971 at Georgetown University in Washington. This academic unit was also the publisher of five-volume Encyclopedia of Bioethics, where bioethics was defined as not only systematic research for moral aspects of life and medical care but also as moral reflection under decision-making process and its policy. It is emphasized that bioethics is inter-disciplinary and independent from any ethical theory or world view. Completely antitethetic meaning of bioethics had been presented by French doctor and philosopher, Jean Bernard. According to his point of view bioethics is not only the part of ethics, but it constitutes its central core[2]. This opinion is nonetheless secluded and most of authors treat bioethics as the part of ethics, suggesting affinity with biology and medicine[3].
Some authors emphasize in turn interdisciplinar dim of bioethics. For example, J. Jaron describes bioethics as “a branch of border science of anthropology, philosophy, ethics, law, medicine, technique and
theology[4]. According to J.Jaron, although bioethics’ purpose is to make moral valuation and to establish ethical rules, it is not a part of ethics[5]. R. Tokarczyk in turn, made a remark that one of the most important taks of bioethics is to prepare legal solutions linked to bioethical issues (problems)[6].
There are some scientists who don’t agree with the point that inception of bioethics is directly linked to biomedicine. W. Bołoz explains that it had been caused by changes in human’s psyche. Pope John Paul II described this apparition as “the culture of death”. However, according to Bołoz these changes had been taking place in parallel with development of science and technology and finally it caused genocide during the World War II and later in USSR. In science world – observes Bołoz – appeared one question: “does medicine is allowed to everything what it can”[7]? Bioethics comprises biomedical issues, therein termination of pregnancy and suicide issue, and related sciences. However it has to be said that it’s not easy to define bioethics to the end, because e.g. some subsume also doctor’s ethics[8] as a part of bioethics. Doctor’s ethics refers to relations between doctor and patient. It seems to be correct to exclude other issues from doctor’s ethics, because only those concerning discussed relations have moral nature[9].
On the other hand, in modern ethical literature has appeared one new trend of linking distant and non-connected issues, only because of one reason. Namely, the central point of these contemplation is biological aspect of human’s life[10].
Although bioethics is new discipline, it does not mean that bioethical drifts had never appeared before in ethical reflection. J. Jaroń notices that “ in fact all over the world, therein also in Poland, bioethics had been discussed yet before 1971, although this term had not been known or named”[11]. Bioethical ideas can be found in the Bible and in publications of philosophers[12]. Bioethical and eco-philosophical problems have become part of contemplations in other disciplines by the fact of scientific-technical progress[13].
It seems that ethical contemplation under these issues have become more systematic and subordinate to the scientific rigor, which is positive phenomenon seeing that before it had been more mass media sensation. Intensified public concern without fail has contributed to appreciation of bioethics as the philosophical discipline[14], however, on the other hand, it made ethics set final conclusion that in many cases occurred too trivial and rash. This conjuncture seems to have been caused by the strand of geneticist’s achievements in 1990s (as duplication of sheep Dolly), what caused general conviction that duplication of human being and manipulation on human’s genetic material are the matter of next few years. As one can see, these apprehensions occurred groundless and the development of genetics is no more the point of discussion, but only human embryo’s duplication is still the sensitive issue.
Ethical problems linked to life do not only concentrate on human being. A man is a living organism and like all living organisms he makes an influence on environment that mutually makes influence on him. The man’s influence on environment operates as the feed-back and that’s why it should be discussed by ethics. Ecoethical theories can be divided out of regard for the value of nature or advantages that come from environment.
This criteria had been taken into account by J. Pawlowska, who separated few main types of eco-ethical theories: egocentric ethics (interested in welfare of the subject), patocentric ethics (interested in welfare of all beings that can suffer), anthropocentric ethics (interested in welfare of all people in general), biocentric ethics (interested in welfare of all living beings) and holistic ethics (interested in welfare of whole nature)[15]. It is worth to point out that this division was based on objective scope of ecoethics, because it referred to human’s attitude towards the nature. All this types invoke to a welfare, although each definition of welfare is different and based on alternative rules.
Ecoethics ideas can be also divided into monistic (assuming unity of man and nature) and dualistic (assuming that besides man and nature there is also spiritual element). Especially theism has a spiritual nature. Theistic conceptions assume ontological supremacy of the spiritual element. They regard material world (including man and nature) as the domain depended on spirit and subordinated to spirit. According to A. Katalo “human’s body can not be treated as the group of tissues, organs and functions. It can not be either measured equally with animal’s body, because it is an important part of the person, who via body and within body expresses himself and manifest himself”[16].
Some authors describe eco-ethics as a part of bioethics. For instance, J.S. Fiut describes bioethics as the ethics of complaisant cohabitation between man, environment and society[17]. This definition is in fact the definition of eco-ethics, which means that author completely resign from differentiation of these two disciplines. J. Jaron emphasizes relation of eco-ecthics and protection of environment. According to him, ecological ethics “regards protection rules of desolate nature”[18]. This point of view is very significant. It pushes to discussion under destructive activity of the man. It’s obvious that relations between man and nature should be reconsidered once again. Origin of ecoethisc was philosophical and biological necessity, and it made enormous influence on discussion under this issue.
Ecoethics has universal nature. It does not refer to each society, culture, but to mankind in general. In other words ecoethics is not only a part of ethics referring to conflict between man and nature, but it it’s becoming the type of point of view including whole human’s existence. According to J. Jaron “ecological ethics begins to appear as reflective model, series of notional formulations, that are suppose to serve to protection of human’s life and nature”[19]. Author emphasizes that there is common point of ecoethics that ecological crisis is tantamount with the crisis of morality.
According to J. Jaron, this crisis is caused by lack of fulfillment of the hope that needs of all being could be appeased and universal growth of welfare and related to it satiation. Not before 1970s, it appeared awareness that unlimited consumption and production leads to irreversible demotion of the environment which can end up with total destruction of modern civilization[20]. The object of the criticism is not only technology but also human being , who indiscriminately believes in progress, consumption, and enormous possibilities of science. Therefore, the recipe is being search in transition of human’s psyche[21].
Generally, philosophy and ecoethics are concerned as sciences separated from protection of environment. Protection of environment can be classified as the division of biology and described as a skill of technical limitation of destructive influence of man on nature. However, this point of view is only partly correct[22]. First of all, protection of environment is not only a practical discipline, i.e. it’s not only the practical skill of the limitation of man’s harmful influence on the nature. This is also the theoretical science concerning researches for efficient protection and prevention against demotion of the environment. To emphasize scientific nature of the protection of environment, polish geologist, Walery Goetel (1899-1972) created term “sozology”, proposing simultaneously to use this name for description of all actions and relations between man and nature[23] (not only hostile and destructive ones). In turn, W. Michailow defines “sozology” as the science concerning changes taking place in nature under the activity of man and methods of counteraction of its negative results[24]. Sozology avails with evaluative categories, e.g. the measure of indesirable influence on environment. Therefore connection between sozology and ethics is definitely close.
Lack of reaction from the side of traditional ethics (e.g. Christian ethisc) on the threats related to industrial development as well as lack of any deeper reflection under the human’s attitude towards nature[25] became the reason for which ethics has been accused of responsibility for the ecological crisis. Ethics has been also blamed for incapability to propose new moral rules that could counteract against this crisis.
Many famous ecoethical theories had been constructed ab ovo, because authors decided it was not possible to educe rules regulating human’s attitude towards nature from general ethical principles. One of the example is movement established in 1980 in United States, called Earth First, that postulates return of the mankind to primitive way of life and restoration of natural ecosystems on the industrial area. This organization became famous because of illegal actions all over the world that had been classified as ecosabotage and ecoterrorizm. Earth First is subsumed to so called deep ecology and it identify human and non-human zone as indivisible area[26].
From the practical point of view this kind of aspiration has to be found as the weakness of these theories, because it is almost impossible to convince people to change their attitude towards nature in so extreme manner. Also inaccurate is accusation that ethical theories had not been able to motivate the need for protection of nature. One the most often utilitarian argument for protection of all existing species is that each even not important one nowadays could be very desirable and indispensable in future. People are responsible for theis activity towards environment also in the face of next generations. It means, that it is possible to create utilitarian ecoethics without necessity of implementing new ideas into discussed theory (according to P. Singer). Also Christian ethics rejects mentioned accusation and tried to create its own Christian ecoethics. Christian scientists propose to concern natural environment as the common welfare and to accept internal (means indepented from human being) value of all beings[27]. Some authors separate ethics referring to animal rights (contrary to those ecoethics[28]). This ethics is interested in animal rights as creatures able to feel and suffer. In 1980s very popular became concept of animal liberation represented by Animal Liberation Front[29], the movement that had proclaimed radical postulates of equal animal and human rights.
It is significant that ethics always postulated protection of animals against suffering and unjustified scientific experiments. However some authors agree to cause the pain and kill animals but only in cases that can be useful for mankind (e.g. scientific experiments, tests).
Ðåöåíçåíò – ïðîô. ªäèíàê Ñ.Â. (Ëþáë³í)
[1] See. A. J. Katolo, ABC Bioetyki, Lublin 1997, p. 28.
[2] See. J. Jaroń, Bioetyka-ekofilozfia-wizje przyszłośći, Warszawa 2003, p. 41.
[3] See. T. Ślipko, Granice życia. Dylematy współczesnej bioetyki, Kraków 1994, p. 16; Â.Ì. Âàíäèøåâ, Ô³ëîñîô³ÿ: Íàâ÷àëüíèé ïîñ³áíèê, Êè¿â 2005, 2006, Ñ. 222-242.
[4] J. Jaroń, Bioetyka, (entry), in: Słownik etyczny, J. Jedynak, Lublin 19990, p. 27.
[5] See. W. Tulibacki, Etyka i nauki biologiczne, Olsztyn 1994, p. 113.
[6] See. R. Tokarczyk, Prawa narodzin, życia i śmierci, Zakamycze 1997, p. 13 and following.
[7] W. Bołoz, Życie w ludzkich rękach. Podstawowe zagadnienia bioetyczne, Warszawa 1997, p. 12 and following.
[8] See. L. Kostro, Bioetyka, (entry), in: Encyklopedia Katolicka, R. Gryglewicz, R. Łukaszczyk, Z. Sułowski, Lublin 1989, vol. II, p. 570.
[9] See. K. Szewczyk, Etyka i deontologia lekarska, Kraków 1994
[10] J. Jaroń, Bioetyka. Wybrane zagadnienia, Warszawa 1999, p. 34.
[11] J. Jaroń, Bioetyka-ekofilozofia…, p. 62.
[12] A. Jakubik, Wybrane wątki bioetyczne w twórczości Marii Ossowskiej, in: Ekofilozofia, bioetyka, etyka biznesu. Aktualne problemy współczesności, J. Jaroń, Siedlce 2004, p. 77 and following.
[13] See. Ochrona środowiska społeczno-przyrodniczego w filozofii i teologii, J.J. Dołęga ta in. – Warszawa 2001.
[14] See. A. Buzzati-Traverso, Najnowsze kierunki biologii, „Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa do spraw UNESCO, Okt. 1967.
[15] See. J. Pawłowska, Sporne problemy etyki ekologicznej, „Kwartalnik Filozoficzny”, Kraków 1993, vol. XXI, vol. 2, p. 141 and following.
[16] A. J. Katolo, ABC bioetyki…, s. 17, see. L. Żuk, Teologia, biologia i moralność, „ Etyka” 5, 1969, p. 179 and following.
[17] See. J. S. Fiut, Idea bioetyki, in: Ochrona środowiska w świetle filozofii wartości, Kraków 1992, p. 55.
[18] J. Jaroń, Bioetyka…, p. 36.
[19] J. Jaroń, Bioetyka-ekofilozofia…, p. 45.
[20] Ibidem.
[21] See. Edukacja ekologiczna na progu XXI wieku. Stan- możliwości-programy, J. W. Czartoszewski, Warszawa 2001.
[22] See. Humanistyczny profil ochrony środowiska. A. Abdank-Kozubski, J. W. Czartoszewski, Warszawa 2003.
[23] See. J. Jaroń, Ekologia, sozologia, ekofilozofia, ekoetyka, ekonomia proekologiczna: przegląd zagadnień, Warszawa 1997.
[24] W. Michajłow, Sozologia I problemy środowiska życia człowieka, Wrocław 1972.
[25] See. J. Jaroń, Bioetyka, ekofilozofia…, p. 62.
[26] See. E. Posłuszna, J, Poszłuszny, Ekologiczny fundamentalism Earth First, in: Ekofilozofia, bioetyka…, p. 15 and following.
[27] See. J. Grzesica, Ochrona naturalnego środowiska człowieka-problem teologiczno-moralny, Katowice 1983.
[28] See. J. Jaroń, Bioetyka…, p. 52 and following.
[29] See. S. Singer, Towards an End to Man’s Inhumanity to Animal, London 1977.